Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I hope they fix this before NA release. Instant respawns and safe zones should not be in the MIDDLE of a siege. Is this an instance as well or are you teleported away if you break the 50-on-your-side-limit? I understand the reasoning behind a 100 player max but come on we had 1000 player sieges in Shadowbane 10 years ago! Why can't developers do that again?!

2. Too few players, too many vehicles. Again and again, anyone can spawn a tank, so they do....

3. Walls are completely useless as of now. Why? Because there is no way to defend them from siege tanks. Your own cannot shoot over and hit the enemy, and there are no trebuchet or any other wall defenses. There are some weapons that spawn up there but they seem to be completely useless. You kinda just wait for the wall to fall, so your own tanks start shooting trough the hole.

4. Defenders spawn in middle of the castle, they have no death-penalty, and can re-spawn infinitely and instantly! The instant you die you can respawn.... This means, that unless you are completely inferior you can never lose. And just spawning and rushing the enemy will be enough, since you are closer to your spawn then they are to theirs. They cannot outnumber you cause hey 50 vs 50 limit.

5. The siege zone is too small.

6. The attackers deploy own camp, their own spawn. It is surrounded by safezone. Yet, the safezone applies to both... even defenders are safe there. Which relates to....

- If you summon siege tank right next to your camp... it is already in range of the walls. That small the zone is. And worse...

- The defenders can glide from walls, directly to the attacker spawnzone, then start abusing the safezone, camping there, attacking and ambushing anyone who tries to get back to battle from there in small numbers.

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I think the limit to the amount of players in sieges is necessary to avoid the pure zerg and keep the siege tools useful.

"What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

From Lineage II, i know that Jake Song knows how to do good siege systens, so i hope he didn't forget.

"What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

50 vs 50 isn't that bad, since it's guild vs guild, and not just a huge cluster battle anyone can jump in or out of, like other games. At first I wonder if it would be OK if both sides can fill, say, 100, for a 100 vs 100 .. but then I think the whole fight mechanics would change, and (as someone already said), zerg tactics would prevail - exploit one tiny weakness with 100 players and you win.

XLGames is under a lot of stress I bet. They are going global with the game - Korean, China, Japan, Russia, Europe, USA .. Given how many features they managed to pull off with ArcheAge, I'm sure they can balance & fix the issues. Trion is stressed out too with all the stuff on their plate now /sigh

That being said .. I *hope* they can give US & the EU a good clean build later this year :D

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Just wanted to point out that the Siege system is currently only on the Test server atm. It isn't even on the live servers yet. The article was pointing out it's flaws but that was the very first siege event on the test server.

If you scroll down the page you will notice there has been numerous fixes to the siege system since then.

As for the 50vs50 per siege, imagine if your guild owned 3 territories. That means you would have to have 150 people in your guild to participate in defending all 3 of your territories.

But I do agree with the safe zone thing. It's freeking annoying, everywhere you go in this game there are safe zones.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Kumapon

Just wanted to point out that the Siege system is currently only on the Test server atm. It isn't even on the live servers yet. The article was pointing out it's flaws but that was the very first siege event on the test server.

If you scroll down the page you will notice there has been numerous fixes to the siege system since then.

As for the 50vs50 per siege, imagine if your guild owned 3 territories. That means you would have to have 150 people in your guild to participate in defending all 3 of your territories.

But I do agree with the safe zone thing. It's freeking annoying, everywhere you go in this game there are safe zones.

Thanks for clarification. I was thinking that sieges with some characteristics described by the OP are regularly going on on the normal servers.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Instanced sieges are bad.

The best system would be to have a fixed weekly (daily?) siege-timer for your castle/city, at which point anyone is free to attack.Respawn-points for attackers would be rather far away, as they simply couldn't respawn at any spawn-point nearby controlled by the enemy. My territory, my respawn-points!This would give the defender an advantage ofc, but the defender should have this advantage.The attacker can get advantages aswell, by calling other guilds to help for example.

If the attackers don't manage to conquer the castle until the timer closes (some 4-6 hours), then it's succesfully defended.

"Premade" GvG sieges like this simply don't cut it. It's like playing a 64vs64 map in a shooter, which is pretty boring.

I don't know why barely any developer gets this right. So far only CCP (EvE online) and has managed to introduce a working and enjoyable siege-system imho.DAoC had a good siege-system aswell back in the days which I liked, but it's nothing compared to the open world FFA-PvP siege warfare of EvE Online.

Report this post

Sieges involved the use of Alliances (multiple guilds that sign on to a single banner, providing additional communication & organization tools between guilds)

This provided for some VERY interesting politics & created many rivalries that fueled PvP outside of Siege cycles

Sieges were conducted every 2 weeks. Leader of a guild or alliance had to sign up to siege a castle, giving the defenders a heads up of what to expect

This allowed for multiple guilds within a single alliance to control multiple castles (which can be argued to be a weakness in L2's siege system)

Siege weapons were VERY expensive (requiring an entire guild to pool resources) and only summonable by 1 class

L2's class system gave one class crafting capability (with other less desirable abilities), and made it so expensive to summon that you only had a few siege weapons on the battle field per siege...as to not make the castle walls pointless

If you died in a siege zone, you were given the option of waiting for a rez, or automatically respawning at the 2nd nearest city.

During siege times, you couldn't port to the nearest city, meaning you had to run back to the battle field from a significant distance as to prevent a constant wave of attackers

Attackers had to perform an uninterupted channeled ability on an object in the heart of the castle to win.

This required attackers to get through 2 walls of defence, and fight their way through the inner castle room, where defenders had many high ground advantages

Defenders also had the ability to summon NPC archers to help defend

Special event during the off-weak of sieges that allowed for challenging guilds / alliances to choose a reward for winning a contest that would weaken walls & defending NPCs

This was in effort to help shake up castle ownership by guilds / alliances that had an iron grip on control of castles (and all the benefits therein)

It wasn't a perfect system, but seems a bit better than what was stated above.

But like the other poster said, this was their first siege attempt on a test server.....a proof of concept, if you will. I expect they will address glaring issues with the system as they get some good use cases on how players use & adapt to it.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

@Yalexy

Sieges leading to the destruction of someones creation is a very personal activity though, stemming specifically from the need for guild domination. Just having everyone able to queue for an event, or roam around with a raid destroying one castle after the other doesn't really lend much to intimate player interaction / guild usefullness. It just fuels someones need for constant action, and I feel would attract the wrong type of player.

Having everyone queue for a battle also can prevent those with a bitter guild rivalry from joining, because the fights would always be full. Allowing more to join in excess of a fixed threshhold would just lead to zerging.

I like the idea of sieges being a very special event, and not just stuff that happens constantly. It may not be for everyone, but there are plenty of other games where you can keep the action high without player interaction or sandbox mentality (ie meaningless PvP, RvR games).

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Karteli@Yalexy

Sieges leading to the destruction of someones creation is a very personal activity though, stemming specifically from the need for guild domination. Just having everyone able to queue for an event, or roam around with a raid destroying one castle after the other doesn't really lend much to intimate player interaction / guild usefullness. It just fuels someones need for constant action, and I feel would attract the wrong type of player.

Having everyone queue for a battle also can prevent those with a bitter guild rivalry from joining, because the fights would always be full. Allowing more to join in excess of a fixed threshhold would just lead to zerging.

I like the idea of sieges being a very special event, and not just stuff that happens constantly. It may not be for everyone, but there are plenty of other games where you can keep the action high without player interaction or sandbox mentality (ie meaningless PvP, RvR games).

There's nothing more personal actually then the open world FFA PvP siege system of EvE Online. It's as personal as it can get, and quiet possibly more personal then anything you've ever seen so far.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Karteli

50 vs 50 isn't that bad, since it's guild vs guild, and not just a huge cluster battle anyone can jump in or out of, like other games. At first I wonder if it would be OK if both sides can fill, say, 100, for a 100 vs 100 .. but then I think the whole fight mechanics would change, and (as someone already said), zerg tactics would prevail - exploit one tiny weakness with 100 players and you win.

XLGames is under a lot of stress I bet. They are going global with the game - Korean, China, Japan, Russia, Europe, USA .. Given how many features they managed to pull off with ArcheAge, I'm sure they can balance & fix the issues. Trion is stressed out too with all the stuff on their plate now /sigh

That being said .. I *hope* they can give US & the EU a good clean build later this year :D

Disagree here. 50 will zerg just as hard. Always balanced too? I'm used to the 600+ in Wushu atm. 1 guild 3 allies. This creates politics too. There is no gaurantee of a equal fight.

50v50, this means no allies? Thus no politics? Idk about this one. I don't think it's as bad as OP makes it out (just because), but it doesn't sound too epic either.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by bcbully

Originally posted by Karteli

50 vs 50 isn't that bad, since it's guild vs guild, and not just a huge cluster battle anyone can jump in or out of, like other games. At first I wonder if it would be OK if both sides can fill, say, 100, for a 100 vs 100 .. but then I think the whole fight mechanics would change, and (as someone already said), zerg tactics would prevail - exploit one tiny weakness with 100 players and you win.

XLGames is under a lot of stress I bet. They are going global with the game - Korean, China, Japan, Russia, Europe, USA .. Given how many features they managed to pull off with ArcheAge, I'm sure they can balance & fix the issues. Trion is stressed out too with all the stuff on their plate now /sigh

That being said .. I *hope* they can give US & the EU a good clean build later this year :D

Disagree here. 50 will zerg just as hard. Always balanced too? I'm used to the 600+ in Wushu atm. 1 guild 3 allies. This creates politics too. There is no gaurantee of a equal fight.

50v50, this means no allies? Thus no politics? Idk about this one. I don't think it's as bad as OP makes it out (just because), but it doesn't sound too epic either.

Being a guild event, a major factor in success will be how coordinated an ofense or defense is. Having bigger teams would accelerate a victory (or loss) between a well orchestrated team and one thats not. Zergs will always be attempted though, you are right. There are logistics to consider before you jump on what I just said.

GvG would possibly be ironed out over time as players got better and more familiar with types of attacks and strategies, but managing 50 players is going to be tough enough, let alone having 100, or 600. 50 people on vent is plenty for me, lol.

Then there is the challenging of getting 50 dedicated "quality" guildies .. 100 would be less common .. 600 would be a nightmare.

Smaller PVP raids also give more opportunity for diverse activities, instead of victory being tied to groups A, B, C, D, ... S, T ... who have specific roles they cannot deviate from, in order to be successful.

That said, I wouldn't be against an alternate minigame massive PvP / GvG allied fight. But since it would be more chaotic and more prone to a complete loss just because of 1 critical mistake by some "other guild", perhaps it could just be done for bragging rights (without permanent destruction) or a cosmetic symbol to advertise victory... castle decoration, temporary title, etc.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Yalexy

Originally posted by Karteli@Yalexy

Sieges leading to the destruction of someones creation is a very personal activity though, stemming specifically from the need for guild domination. Just having everyone able to queue for an event, or roam around with a raid destroying one castle after the other doesn't really lend much to intimate player interaction / guild usefullness. It just fuels someones need for constant action, and I feel would attract the wrong type of player.

Having everyone queue for a battle also can prevent those with a bitter guild rivalry from joining, because the fights would always be full. Allowing more to join in excess of a fixed threshhold would just lead to zerging.

I like the idea of sieges being a very special event, and not just stuff that happens constantly. It may not be for everyone, but there are plenty of other games where you can keep the action high without player interaction or sandbox mentality (ie meaningless PvP, RvR games).

There's nothing more personal actually then the open world FFA PvP siege system of EvE Online. It's as personal as it can get, and quiet possibly more personal then anything you've ever seen so far.

Ganking all the same in many cases.

Going back to your point about a siege where everyone can join, would you really want your base protected by a bunch of PUG's who would ditch you in a heartbeat the moment the tide started to turn? I could only see that as viable if the PUG's needed to post resources as collateral, given to the losing guild if they lost. Without anything at stake GvG / PUGs would just be another case of "Oh G2G, bye!" if a win wasn't looking promising.

The PUG loses nothing, but the guild loses everything they worked for.

Of course the classier players would drop link because of a power outage. Same result.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Mothanos

This game went from top dog on my radar to trashbin before even touching it. Sanbox failure V2.999

I wouldn't saya failure completely it will still be good entertaiment for people that aren't really into pvp. It sure went from sandbox to typical theme park in few months which makes me want to puke my guts out, but what can you do they are trying to make money not friends.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by coretex666

Originally posted by Kumapon Just wanted to point out that the Siege system is currently only on the Test server atm. It isn't even on the live servers yet. The article was pointing out it's flaws but that was the very first siege event on the test server. If you scroll down the page you will notice there has been numerous fixes to the siege system since then. As for the 50vs50 per siege, imagine if your guild owned 3 territories. That means you would have to have 150 people in your guild to participate in defending all 3 of your territories.But I do agree with the safe zone thing. It's freeking annoying, everywhere you go in this game there are safe zones.

Thanks for clarification. I was thinking that sieges with some characteristics described by the OP are regularly going on on the normal servers.

The size of the siege is not a problem. 50v50 is ok, for me.

NP, I am glad there is one person in this thread that can actually read and understand what's going on.

Again "THE SIEGE SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY ONLY ON THE TEST SERVER ATM".

Did you know that last weeks Siege was 55 vs 55 ? And starting this Friday the siege's will be 100 vs 100 ? So it's constantly being tested and fixed.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

If this game is treated right by XL it could be the fantasy version of EVE-Online, it certainly does have that potential and is no more open or less open than EVE was when it launched, keep that in mind and keep fighting for equality between PVP and PVE, if you want to scrub it in PVE ti'll end game, ok, you'll get the choice (just like in EVE), if you want however to get better gear than obtainable via PVE and actually have a unique experience you jump into the PVP side of things.

-waits for Archeage EU OBT to launch so he can start supplying escort services to merchant convoys in his fast clipper ship-

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

L2 had the best siege system without question (well maybe EVE can be counted in some way but it isn't really the same kind of game (sci-fi spaceship game vs fantasy etc)). I hope Jake realizes this and implements something like that, leading a clan in L2 to battle and using the bubbles in chokepoints to stop enemies from advancing thus making sure they get squashed between your bubbles and another enemy clan or such was fucking amazing. Nothing will ever feel so good again imo.

Kings of mass PVP: EVE and L2. Hopefully we will be able to add AA to that group but I honestly doubt it, they are catering towards the slightly more casual and esporty type of players it would seem.

EDIT: After making this post I started looking at youtube clips for L2 mass pvp videos and realized that L2 had both the worst and best community I know of, worst as in lots of flame and hate and best as in lots of teamwork to a whole other scale than current games. 9v9 fights being the standard in that game during pvp was something special. Daily 18vs18 fights were really common and bigger fights like 50vs50 or 100vs100 (or more) as well. A game that had flying mounts like... 2005? 2006 something? I doubt there will be a game like that ever again.